Santa's dual answer: Capital punishment is the only government policy where the intended end result is death. That end result is only intended for a minute segment of the population, those who commit crimes warranting the death penalty. Other goverment policies or actions, while they may result in the death of innocent people, are not intended to result in death. If the goverment must execute its citizens, then it needs to be damn sure it is executing the right ones. In a situation where absolute guilt cannot be discerned, no room is left to rectify the situation if you execute the convicted. Death cannot be undone. A life sentence can. No, years lost cannot be given back, but freedom can be restored. No part of the death penalty can be corrected once implemented. We hold death as the ultimate punishment, yet we do not require ultimate proof. We only require proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Dear Santa,
I think your two cents are worth a whole lot more than most people continuing this argument will admit. You have found the perfect median for me to agree and to still throw in my last two cents in the fray.
We all talk about government pork barrels and the price of an innocent life, this is supposedly a Democratic country, can't we express our similar concerns regarding the execution of an innocent man?
I've mentioned the fact that technology has resulted in the release (after a wasted life) of many death row inmates, and that's a good thing (sort of). Innocent men have very definitely been put to death (and maybe even while Bush was governor of the state with the dubious honor of MOST executions), the death penalty is handed out unevenly with regards to race, and (as we all know) the more expensive your lawyer, the more likely you'll get off. These are all bad things. It certainly might not help Tookie if we devote more funds to sciences that could ensure guilt or deny guilt in 99.9999% of cases.
For the remainder, I feel they are likely too close to the crime to weasel their way out of guilt. Which brings me to my two cents. I have seen too many good innocent people die violent deaths. My stint in the military, a stint in a hospital ER and later working with GIs as a defense contractor and occasional visit to the VA hospital have left me valuing life in (apparently) a different way than most. My point is, I value innocent life to the point that I would step in-between you and a raging Tookie if it were our situation. Tookie would have deserved to die that night, and he certainly deserved to die 25 years later.
Bob Kark (and others) have said that this argument is much like guns, Bush, abortion, and other things that people are passionate about - we all have our points, and I personally respect everyone's opinion, but we'll never change each other's mind. Perhaps we should all push for a pork barrel that would help ensure that no one is put to death without undeniable, irrefutable, insurmountable evidence.
